Q.Mr.H&
A. IF the two proper infinte subsets of Collet's "mish mash"(a Gladyshev term) are NOT Wright's PARENTAL latitutde and longitude. This requires a level of abstraction ABOVE that provided by a Cornell education and training say from William Provine just to falisfy let alone PROOVE true. I think it would be better to work on the "zero" around spontaneous and nonspontanesou process by a one to many relation of H(shannon) entropy to various kinds of S(clausius,gibbs,gladyshev) entropy. G-Entropy(collect,picard) could be a mistake that creates the discussion referred to but I havent looked that hard in to this literature.
In truth of quote Darwin might not have been MORE forthWRITE in his use of "organ" as I believe(but dont know) this may be a traceable reference to the TORPEDO's ELECTRIC ORGAN. If so I can even recompose my above particular's INTO DARWINS thought on inheritance. Certainly if one NEVER considers the SHIFTING balance INTO an ecological species from a scientfically found physiological one, the average reader will never learn that kinds of organs no matter how formed need not be gradually read nor necessarily consonant with Gould's notions but it would be easier to talk about issues of equilibriums than second guessing why Gould, Provine, and others after Darwin's cuticle refused to print obviously from Wright's THE STATISTICAL CONSEQUENCES OF MENDELIAN HEREDITY IN REALTION TO SPECIATION that there is a NECESSARY ShIfT "from the essentially physiological concept, kind, to the ecological one,to...population"
Provine simply asserted the cost to abstract this was too high. This is not about money but brains. Gould only allowed reciprocal reading but vector writing while I permit it either way.
™ Version 4.2
